Streaks, LOL

Katweezel · Nov 26, 2008

This is my reply to Sagefrog. Your serious question about whether Parpaluck can bust the Lotto with his systems is ruined by your sarcastic LOL at the end, which shows where you are at. I think you could be one of those Sheeples. You know... can't think for yourself, go along with the multitude, only comfortable with your old, stale, familiar thought patterns; anything outside your little mental box is a threat. Sound familiar?

As for Parpaluck, I have no idea if his Lotto Systems can crack a big one. But I do know he has a loyal band of followers who swear by his various systems. I have a roulette system I got for free from his site, that (gasp) actually works great, when it is worked properly. (It... wins... money!)Anyone can get it, believe it or not, for free. Take a look yourself before you gag on another LOL. But beware; it is not for the lazy, incompetent, sluggish minds. You will need to study it and work at it. Like anything good, it takes work to get the most out of it.

Years ago, he charged $10K for all his systems, but now, some are free and ALL others can be downloaded for the joining members' fee of $15. He has repeatedly said many of his systems have been pirated and illegally reproduced and the small fee is primarily designed to shoot the pirates out of the water.

He is one of the few Blackjack 'experts' that have had the guts to tackle a taboo subject: blackjack streaks. He has what he calls a "Science of Streaks" philosophy, part of which zg posted here. Did you read it? Probably not, too busy LOL at that 'preposterous' idea too, huh? Knowing about streaks and how they apply to BJ can improve your game; great if you still think you don't know it all. But only worth a sneery LOL if you do think you know it all.

I'm glad I made a friend here already...

cardcounter0 · Nov 26, 2008

I have a roulette system I got for free from his site, that (gasp) actually works great, when it is worked properly.

LOL

sagefr0g · Nov 26, 2008

Katweezel said:

lol, i think if you direct that statement to any of the other forum members on this site about the Sheeples part they might tend to disagree. but yes i do have trouble thinking for myself and anything outside my little mental box does tend to set off a red flag.

well your right i do find the idea of beating the lottery prepostorous. lol.
far as that roulette system goes i doubt as i'd be interested, sounds like to much study and work for me.

oh, ok. well if you get a chance let him know i'm enjoying the book by Weaver, Lady Luck The Theory of Probability. it's a pretty good read for first time study of the subject imho.

i guess your not allowed to provide a direct link for that article since Sonny thinks you are Parapluck. i'll read most anything as long as it holds my interest.

same here, sorry if my skeptical nature rubbed you the wrong way.

blackchipjim · Nov 26, 2008

The systems

There are alot of systems out there that when worked properly will beat the odds. Anyone that follows gambling in general has one time or another read or used the system beater system. The Grandmaster system is one that is used and it's offspring is used by rouletters. Skeptics here you bet! where do you think you posted this thread. blackchipjim

Katweezel · Nov 28, 2008

Roulette system

cardcounter0 said:

My reply to cardcounter0...I figure the 0 in your handle refers to how many times you won at BJ, while counting...
The point I was trying to make in my post (obviously unsuccessful in your case) is that I put some work in to understand how that roulette system works, and more importantly, how to work it properly. The time I spent studying it was well worth it. I am over two grand ahead with it, (in just 4 months) which is a roulette feat unheard of for me, in 25years of casino experience.

Now, if you are too busy red-LOL with your head up your... well, too bad for you if you don't have the intelligence to at least check out what could be a good, (FREE) idea. K

Katweezel · Nov 28, 2008

sagefr0g said:

Mr Frog,
I'm new here as you know, and I know nothing of Sonny. I recall Cher, but that was long ago. As for S thinking I am also Parpaluck; even S, I hope, (if he is a moderator or something official here) would be intelligent enough to realize that Parpaluck and I are based in different countries. A quick check of originating email addresses would confirm that!

Now for one multi-personality to be in two different countries at the same time, each sending emails here, is a feat that even the techno-whiz-geek, Parpaluck would find extremely difficult, if not impossible - even for his legendary skills.

I like your skeptical nature, Frogman, reminds me of mine! I am intrigued by 'posts 3597' under your name. Does this mean you wrote 3597 posts here? If you reply to this, will that be 3598? If that is the case, that is impressive. It surely is an all-time record. Have you put out "Frogman's Greatest Hits yet?" (That was a free, creative idea that occurred to me in the Now. No charge.) Cheers. K

PS Be careful of using too many LOL, or more politely lol (tell cardcounter0.5)
because that habit may give you a new nickname, in red, to add to the Frog.

Katweezel · Nov 28, 2008

Streaks

sagefr0g said:

Mr Fr0g Here is the BJ streaks piece. K
Originally Posted by zengrifter
Voodoo needs more action like his, and to discuss the various fallacious Voodoo systems.
Please let him repost what he previously placed for all to see and discuss.
I'm not trying to discourage discussion, I'm just trying to keep it focused and productive. That won't happen when a troll is involved. Any member who wants to discuss his systems in detail can start a new thread. I have copied the relevant part of his previous post below if anyone is interested.

Quote:
Gambling mathematics can be defined as the science of streaks. A session at the blackjack table can be recorded as a succession of streaks. For example, from the Player's perspective –

Win|Loss|WW|LLL|Push|L|W...etc.

The streaks can be also viewed as skips between hits; e.g. how many hands the Player skipped between two hits (wins). The underpinning of the streaks is undeniably mathematical. If you don't believe me, take Warren Weaver's word on it. The title of the book is: "Lady Luck — The Theory of Probability". The streaks can be calculated precisely and real events concur with the formulae.

I present here only the result of discarding the pushes. The approach considers the blackjack probabilities as follows:

~ Dealer: p = 52% (or 0.52);
~ Player: p = 48% (or 0.48).

Number of hands: 1000 (uninterruptedly; you should always play shorter sessions, under 100 hands).

~ Dealer: 120 single-win streaks and 128 multi-win streaks;
~ Player: 130 single-win streaks and 118 multi-win streaks.

Following is the total number of streaks for the Dealer and the Player in 1000 hands, from single streaks and 2 to 8 multiple like-streaks.

~ Dealer: 120 (single), 62 (double streak), 32, 17, 9, 5, 2, 1: A total of 505 winning hands;
~ Player: 130 (single), 62 (double streak), 30, 14, 7, 3, 2, .8: A total of 475 winning hands.

I wonder why the casinos nowadays scare the players who open a notebook and write down the roulette spins? Moreover, the casinos do not want to turn on the marquees (electronic displays) at quite a few roulette tables. I wonder why the casinos impede me from playing blackjack?

Ion Saliu,
Casinobuster At-Large

sagefr0g · Nov 28, 2008

no big deal about the number of posts, i can assure you. all it represents is a dogged nature over blackjack, a thing that has potential for profit. i'm like that about things that have potential for profit.

Katweezel said:

well, first off, i don't get the point.
second, i'm reading Weaver's book. and i'm wondering what pages Parpluck is referancing.
third, i've yet to see a casino that doesn't use marquees at the roulette tables.

UK-21 · Nov 28, 2008

I'm puzzled. How do you beat roulette, when every spin of the wheel and result is completely independent of the last, the rules and payouts are set and all of the apparatus remains the same for each play?

The only way I can see that you can have a mathematical edge in roulette is:

(a) physically alter the wheel, so perhaps the red slots are wider than the black slots, or get rid of the ZERO altogether.

(b) change the rules, ie different bets ride at diffferent times rather than lose if the number doesn't come up.

(c) change the payouts so that something nearer full odds are paid, ie 9-1 on a four number block rather than 8-1.

Or, of course, a combination of all three . . .

What is the mathematical basis for predicting streaks?

UK-21 · Nov 28, 2008

newb99 said:

Of course, silly me, it's VOODOO ! ! ! ! ! !

Katweezel · Nov 28, 2008

Can anyone win consistently at roulette? Yep!!!!!

newb99 said:

This is the second reply I've had where the rude poster has used large, red capitals. You go a step further with your overuse of unnecessary exclamation marks!!!!! I learned long ago, that it's rudeness to post in that ignorant manner. Maybe I should not see the way that you two donkeys attempt to express ideas as being the the accepted norm here.

So, obviously, it is a waste of time discussing ideas with you, beyond Elmer Fudd, Bugs and Homer. I can imagine how you may feel about this statement: "There are people who know how to win consistently at roulette; despite the 2.7% (single-zero) house edge, and the 5.something% HE on double zero roulette."
And that ain't voodoo. It's fact!!!!!!!!!!!! Even you should be able to find out that statement is true, if you devote some time and what's left of your intelligence to search.

Katweezel · Nov 28, 2008

Dogged

sagefr0g said:

Sage, Yep, me too; dogged; profit. Now exactly what point is it that you don't get about the BJ streaks? And I just know you are not going to use a lol in your reply!

UK-21 · Nov 28, 2008

Katweezel said:

Apologies for being flippent, but the only way to play a mathematically winning game is to find one that has been altered in some way. As there's no solid way of predicting when positive variance will come (short of witchcraft), the maths will eventually catch up with those people who have consistently won when playing roulette. I'm sure there are a lucky few that luck smiles upon and who always stay one step ahead of the mathematical probabilities, but there will be a far greater number who don't - and I think that's the health warning to take account of when applying systems to fixed -EV games. I'm sure there are people who have come out ahead applying the Martingale progression, but there will be far more who will have tapped out before turning their losses around. If it was possible to predict positive variance I'd learn how to and pack up with all of this card counting nonsense.

I play roulette, and sometimes I walk away with more than I started with. But I don't believe that there is any method or system, that doesn't involve altering the game, that will allow me to do this consistently.

Apologies again for causing offence. Quite ungentlemanly behaviour on my part.

Newb99

sagefr0g · Nov 28, 2008

Katweezel said:

if i use lol, describing a sense of humor please don't take offense.

even though your correct that it can be used derisively. in my prior case i was only using it sarcastically. i would just state that in my opinion anyone who purports to have a maths system that can yeild a profit off of the lottery (within reasonable expectations) is either mistaken or perhaps dishonest.
i simply don't understand the point of the anectedotal streak examples that were contained in Parpluck's message that you was kind enough to repost.
i mean, we all know that blackjack is a streaky game. we've all seen (what seem to us) odd or unusually long streaks where the dealer wins hands over fist or vice-a-versa. and we've seen mediocre streaks where the action is mundane as if the dealer and player was just trading punchs.
so, but i'm not getting Parpluck's point. i suppose he's implying that one can take advantage of streaks. sorry, but i fail to connect the dots as far as the sense of it.
it would be appreciated if Parpluck would give the pages in Weaver's book that supports his reasoning.

Katweezel · Nov 29, 2008

BJ streaks

Sage, I can't help you with Weaver's book. I haven't read it yet. As for Parpa's streak thing, these two sentences were left off, when zg posted it:
"The 20 extra hands are most mathematically likely allocated as 11 (52%) to the dealer and 9 (48%) to the player." Making 1000 total.

I have found few references to streaks in any BJ book. It seems to be a topic that has been avoided by most all authors. (Too hard?)

Even though P's piece is admittedly for a tiny sample, (1000) just for the moment, if you will, accept his figures as accurate for say, a one billion sim, for the purposes of this discussion.

At first glance, if you compare the two sets of figures, there seems to be only minor differences. So how can these figures help our personal game of BJ? Here is what I found interesting:

Overall total streaks favor the dealer by 4%.

120:130 ratio of single streaks 9.2% in favor of the player. (Meaning, the player is 9.2% more likely than the dealer to go... WLWLWL)
Double-streaks are identical, (just over 12% of total streaks, for each.) From there on, longer streaks mostly favor the dealer.
A streak of 8 for either seems to be approaching extreme streak-limit.

Total % for single, double, or triple streaks looks like this:
Player Dealer
120 - 23% V 130 - 25%
62 - 12% V 62 - 12%
30 - 6% V 32 - 6% = total 84%

Conclusions: Single, double or triple streaks will comprise about 84% of your BJ experience. Single streaks favor the player by 9%. Any streak of 8 or more, is a huge longshot. Any more discoveries, are there waiting for you to uncover...
Cheers...K

Katweezel · Nov 30, 2008

Mass Thought Machine

newb99 said:

Newb99, You resored my faith in humanity. You can write ideas, coherently!
Just between you and me, I think it's time you changed that handle now, to something more in line with who and what you are, now. Not 9 years ago. (Just kidding.)
In John Scarne' book, he refers to an Asian lady who he noticed turned $200 into $250,000 at baccarat, in Las Vegas long ago, when that was real money, over a week, I think it was. Scarne speculates that only some kind of winning 'system' could possibly overcome the mammoth odds (and negative house edge) against achieving such a huge win, from such a small beginning-bankroll. She probably did have some superior 'system' that was able to give her what every gambler dreams of possessing: your very own house edge, turned against the house.

Card counters try to do this every time they play, hey. But the best we can hope for is a measley 0.5% profit on turnover. Or if we are really, really excellent at it, and also pretty good at fooling the pit without getting the boot, we might go as high as a ONE % profit on turnover. Maybe if we are also really, really good at ace-tracking, sequencing, shuffle-tracking, hole-carding and the like, our POT may increase. BUT, we are still at the whim of that dreaded monster called...variance, as you pointed out. But don't buy into mass belief. The Asian lady certainly didn't.

And just because Mass Thought says nothing short of witchcraft can predict postive variance, does not necessarily mean it is The Truth. Some people alive now, have discovered a way of claiming a substantial House Edge in their game...whatever game that may be. There is a way... Maybe several. That can also be achieved at blackjack. (Not a miserable half or one, or even two percent either. A lot more POT!) Of course, these 'lucky' ones are not going to sell their hard-won secrets, now are they? But if anyone's beliefs are generated from, or via the Mass Thought Machine, you ain't ever gonna get anywhere other than where the MTM is already, in it's millions, right? And MTM knows all about math and players' limits on every casino game, correct?

As for roulette, I mentioned where you can have a free system and if you look carefully into it, you will notice the undeniable math, the streaks' math, and so on. It could give you your very own (gasp!) house edge, on a game where the voice of God herself (MTM) says: "Bullshit. It can't be done..."
Cheers K

Kasi · Nov 30, 2008

Katweezel said:

If by "consistently" you mean win more times than you lose, that is achieve a goal with the same roll betting a certain way each time and always the same way, absolutely lol.

The very essence of voodoo.

Overcoming a house edge - that's stretching it lol.

Katweezel · Nov 30, 2008

We shall overcome...the house edge.

Kasi said:

Hi Kasi, You seem to be yet another here stuck on the 3-letter word, 'lol'. Must be an epidemic. At least you don't print it in red, large capitals.
Overcoming the house edge is the reason why you were born here, on planet Earth. It is your life's mission. You can begin by throwing all that crap you picked up over time, causing you to believe it can't be done. It can, pal. Absolutely. Don't listen to all those lol-ers out there, and stop being one yerself!
'Winning consistently', as far as my roulette game is concerned, means winning exactly in line with the system's EV. I will come out in front twice, for every three sessions. In the one losing session, I won't lose much. Five bucks a unit, is my bet. Euro single-zero roulette, if I can find it in my travels. K

UK-21 · Nov 30, 2008

I'm currently putting my thoughts together regarding writing a submission about the true disadvantage of playing a game serviced with a CSM - my view is that the arguement that for a BS player the HE is slightly reduced (because 4 decks are used instead of 6) is simplistic and misleading.

The reason why I mention this is that it will cover similar ground to Katweezel's and Kasi's postings above -that there is a difference between ending up with more money than you started with by applying a system, and the system being able to overcome the HE.

The laws of probability show that there will always be someone who turns 3 cents into a million bucks through gambling. They also show, in theory, if you put enough chimps behind enough typewriters, keep 'em fed and watered and let 'em rattle away, they'll eventually replicate the complete works of Shakespeare. There are people who have been hit by lightening twice, and 40 Std Dev occurances do happen.

But because someone turning $250 into quarter of a million is so rare, and unusual, there is a natural inclination within the human psyche to conclude that they must have applied some sort of "system" to alter the odds of the game in their favour. But, in fact, probably not. It's more the case that they are just one of the 40 Std Dev occurances. Someone wins the lottery in the UK every week, but there's no way that particular game can be tampered with.

I read somewhere that humans are genetically programmed to identify trends, systems and repetive cycles in life - and we do this, and convince ourselves of the validity of our conculsions, even though none may actually exist. One reason why so many people scream "cheating" when they experience an acute run of bad luck - they see a trend of losing within a sample that is far too small for it to be of significance. If that one very fortunate person was stood in front of all of those who lost money gambling, I think it would put the whole thing in perspective.

I'm going to respectfully decline your offer to try the system you highlighted. Roulette, for me, will continue to be just flirting with lady luck and nothing more. My local library has a book on winning roulette - curiousity got the better of me and I had to read it. It was written by an accountant which is worrying. His system was basically built on the basis that the number that will come up next will, more often than not, be within +/-4 of the last one, and that if a number comes up 3 times during a session it was a hot number and should be covered during every subsequent spin of the wheel. That was basically it. No mathematical reasoning to back up his assertion, no indication of his sample size over which he had applied this, nichts. He stated in the final chapter that applying his system hadn't meant he'd won anything substantial but it had provided him with hours of "free" entertainment at the roulette table and some pocket money. I'm sure he believed that his system was the reason he wasn't out of pocket. Unfortunately the maths suggest otherwise.

As to changing a forum handle, I didn't know you could?

Newb99

Kasi · Nov 30, 2008

Katweezel said:

Don't confuse finishing ahead in dollars over a lifetime with "overcoming" the HA.

The former is possible, been there, done that, the second simply isn't.

Unless simply being ahead at a point in time is what you mean by "overcoming" the HA while still acknowledging it is a -EV game?

Streaks, LOL

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member